International Research Institute for Controversial Histories (iRICH)
President
Sugihara Seishiro
April 1, 2022

Our Statement
The International Research Institute for Controversial Histories (iRICH), which was established on
November 1, 2018, became a general incorporated association with the official appellation of “General
Incorporated Association International Research Institute for Controversial Histories,” as of April 1,2022. We would like to make a statement on this occasion.
The aim of our institute was stipulated as “this incorporated association aims to protect the honor anddignity of Japan and the Japanese people through international controversies over historical issues” inArticle 3 of our Agreement. The new version of Article 3 of our “Statute” states: “This incorporated
association aims mainly to conduct historical research, publish results and disseminate the correctunderstanding of Japan both domestically and internationally.” Words have changed, but our mission
to challenge international controversies, including our activities related to the United Nations, which
unfortunately have been insufficient so far, is the same as ever.
As of the historical studies, we must emphasize that presently, historical studies in the world tend todeviate from the scientific methodology and have become something very different.
To argue this point further, we must ask what science is. Science refers to arguments based on objectivefacts. Natural science, social science and human science are all sciences because they are arguments
based on facts.
Study of history belongs to human science and deals with the past, which can be defined asinterpretation of what happened in the past. By interpreting it, based on facts, past events can berecognized and understood.

However, in many recent cases emerging around the world, historical studies adhere to low
standards or do not meet scientific criteria at all.
1

A typical example of this trend is the comfort women issue. We have been dealing directly with thisissue. The essence of the comfort women issue is that during World War II, there were “militarycomfort women” used by the Japanese Army who were allegedly abducted by Japanese officials . Theissue started with the book My War Crime—Forced Abduction of Koreans (published by San-Ichi
Shobo Publishing Inc in 1983.) written by a Japanese man named Yoshida Seiji. In the book, Yoshidacreated a false story vividly depicting a hunt for comfort women in the Korean island of Jeju. Thus,
the book made comfort women a big political issue. With mismanagement on the part of the Japanese
Government in dealing with the issue from the very start, the problem led to the present situation ofcomfort women statues being built all over the world. There were neither “military comfort women”
nor “forced abduction.” Those were professional comfort women working without coercion, which
has been perfectly proven by both Korean and Japanese scholars. The Japanese leading paper, which
had reported extensively on Yoshida Seiji’s fictitious story, admitted that its reporting about thecomfort women issue was false and cancelled its related articles in 2014.
Under such scholarly circumstances, Professor Ramseyer of Harvard University posted a scholarly
essay, "Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War," on the International Review of Law and Economics’
website, in which he clearly stated that comfort women were engaged in sexual services under contract,definitively proving that there was no “forced abduction.” The summary of this essay appeared in themagazine “Japan Forward” in January 2021. Upon this, many critics from South Korea, the UnitedStates, Europe and Japan, calling themselves scholars, issued a statement asking Professor
Ramseyer to withdraw his essay. The number of scholars who joined in the statement demanding theremoval of Professor Ramseyer’s essay amounted to 3,665 as of May 11, 2021.
This is an act digressing far from the standards of the scientific study and can no longer be called astudy. Those self-proclaimed scholars simply asked for withdrawal of the essay, and did not refer toany facts, neither did they try to refute his arguments. This was not a study concerned with facts. It
was not a study by any standards.
Historical studies, as science, do not aim to insult or incite hatred toward a specific country or people.
The request to withdraw the essay aims to hurl insults and provoke hatred as undercurrent and diverts
from the scientific scholarly objectives.
Interpretation matters in the study of history. When it comes to interpreting cases related to a certain2

country or people, it is necessary to compare them with cases of other countries or people, todemonstrate a fair and conscientious approach to the study.
We, the researchers of the International Research Institute for Controversial Histories, on this occasionof our becoming a general incorporated association, will look far and wide across the world, makefurther efforts to continue our study as science, based on facts, and contribute to the promotion ofworld peace and development of the world for the international citizens.
We extend our heart-felt gratitude to those who have supported us and sincerely hope that all of you
will continue to encourage us as you did before

3